Hi. For those of you who have never heard of this subject before, this may seem like a crazy persons ramblings, but I encourage you to read the whole thing before you make up your mind. Legalization of drugs is actually a fairly odd but important subject.
I am personally for it.
And no, this isn't some random junkie trying to make his next fix. I'm going to give you reasons for an against. If anyone has anything I missed on either front, then feel free to comment and add in an argument.
So lets begin.

Arguments AGAINST Legalization of Drugs:

It could massively increase the amount of drug-users.
Companies could start working towards a more addictive drug legally, redirecting markets and endangering peoples lives.
It could be exploited by big industries.
Some legalized drugs would have an incredibly negative effect. An example would be the newly created drug that is spreading throughout Russia, a chemical that is much more addictive than heroine and causes necrosis (it causes the skin to die) which pretty much turns you into a zombie.

Arguments FOR Legalization of Drugs:

It would eliminate the criminal market for drugs. It would cost less to be legal than illegal, meaning that dealers would be incapable of keeping up with legal prices.
Safe environments for drugs. If people were monitored and/or had to go to certain places to get their fix, then deaths would be massively reduced.
The introduction of marijuana. I don't think I have to go through the possible benefits of this particular drug.
A possible reduction of drug rates. Based on statistics from Holland where chemicals such as hash are much less harsh, it actually has one of the lowest drug consumption rates in the world.

I think cannabis should be legalized. I don't really have a strong opinion regarding the legalization of drugs, so I'll just present a quick case in favor of cannabis legalization.

• It's practically harmless when smoked properly
  
• It will have the same effect as some over-the-counter drugs
  
• Much less harmful than many legal, over-the-counter drugs (nearly impossible to overdose)
  
• It's a plant. Why are there rules restricting me from growing natural herbs? Makes no sense
  

I'd venture to say the only reason it's illegal is because it can't be patented since it's a plant, meaning pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be able to sell it effectively as anybody would be able to grow the plant in their own home. Also, it would pose as a preferable alternative to many of those companies' products, causing them to lose a massive profit. If everybody who used Advil to get rid of headaches, instead, had their own legal stash of weed, they wouldn't need to spend any money at all on pain-relief meds.

As for harder drugs, I'm not entirely sure. I guess I'd say it should be legal. I get that the government wants to keep people healthy, but why do others get to determine what I'm allowed to put into my system? (This point can be easily disputed but it's the best I've got)

Quote from Mango

It's a plant. Why are there rules restricting me from growing natural herbs? Makes no sense

Natural isn't a magic word that makes everything okay. The black mamba occurs in nature (ergo, is a natural thing), but it is an aggressive, territorial predator that can move up to 20 km/h and is one of the most venomous snakes in existence. This is certainly not something that it would be a good idea to have in the vicinity of *any* house.
Plants can also be dangerous or a serious nuisance as well, so this argument doesn't really make any sense.

Quote from Mango

I'd venture to say the only reason it's illegal is because it can't be patented since it's a plant

This is a bad reason also because it isn't even true. Plants AND animals can be patented as long as they are genetically engineered to be a separate identifiable entity than just some random species in the forest. If someone breeds a strain of cannabis that has some effect that is clearly identifiable and unique, that particular strain can be patented even though it is a living being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent

Quote from Fusion

Natural isn't a magic word that makes everything okay. The black mamba occurs in nature (ergo, is a natural thing), but it is an aggressive, territorial predator that can move up to 20 km/h and is one of the most venomous snakes in existence. This is certainly not something that it would be a good idea to have in the vicinity of *any* house.
Plants can also be dangerous or a serious nuisance as well, so this argument doesn't really make any sense.

I don't recall saying that because it's natural everything is okay, so I'm sorry if you think I implied that. That particular point was simply my opinion as an add-on to formerly establishing that the plant is near harmless. Also, there are fundamental differences between natural herbs and aggressive, venomous reptiles. Because I'm approving of a harmless plant doesn't mean I approve of all things natural. That's like saying because I think it's okay for every household to have knives, it's also okay for them to carry nuclear missiles since they both can be considered weapons.

Quote from Fusion

This is a bad reason also because it isn't even true. Plants AND animals can be patented as long as they are genetically engineered to be a separate identifiable entity than just some random species in the forest. If someone breeds a strain of cannabis that has some effect that is clearly identifiable and unique, that particular strain can be patented even though it is a living being.

I still would argue that cannabis as a whole can't be patented. New or genetically modified plants can be patented, but there isn't a way to patent cannabis as a whole. The same way isolated human cells can be patented, an entire human can't be patented. Even if there was a way for pharmaceutical companies to patent cannabis if it became legal, it would be significantly easier to grow it in one's home and get away with it. What I should have said is "it can't be effectively patented."

Quote from Mango

I don't recall saying that because it's natural everything is okay, so I'm sorry if you think I implied that. That particular point was simply my opinion as an add-on to formerly establishing that the plant is near harmless. Also, there are fundamental differences between natural herbs and aggressive, venomous reptiles. Because I'm approving of a harmless plant doesn't mean I approve of all things natural. That's like saying because I think it's okay for every household to have knives, it's also okay for them to carry nuclear missiles since they both can be considered weapons.

The bullet point in your post says "It's a plant. Why are there laws restricting me from growing natural herbs? It makes no sense" which literally contains no information other than that you think something being a "natural" plant is a reason for it to not be restricted. The argument that I think you were trying to get across is that it is harmless, but that is not what you said there.

EDIT: Also, what do you mean by "effectively" when you say "effectively patented"?
And what do you mean by harmless?

Quote from Fusion

The bullet point in your post says "It's a plant. Why are there laws restricting me from growing natural herbs? It makes no sense" which literally contains no information other than that you think something being a "natural" plant is a reason for it to not be restricted. The argument that I think you were trying to get across is that it is harmless, but that is not what you said there.

That's fair, I guess I wasn't clear. I'll admit I just didn't want to say "plants" twice so I replaced it with a seemingly appropriate alternative; "natural herbs". But I don't understand why you're singling out the word "natural" and building a counterpoint solely on that. That bullet point was, as earlier stated, simply a question as to why a practically harmless plant is illegal to grow, followed by my own opinion whereby I state that it doesn't make sense to me.

Quote from Fusion

Also, what do you mean by "effectively" when you say "effectively patented"?
And what do you mean by harmless?

When I said "it [cannabis] can't be effectively patented", I meant the following. Let's assume a non-governmental organization patents newly legalized cannabis in the future. Since it's a plant and can be easily grown, anybody is able to grow it within the confines of their home. In contrast to how things are today, more people would smoke and nobody would second guess it since it's legal. The primary motive behind an organization having something patented is so that they can have exclusive rights to the subject and no one else can profit from it. The purpose of the patent isn't being accomplished when everybody is able to fabricate and obtain your product by their own means, without you gaining a profit, making your patent largely ineffective.

I said cannabis was nearly harmless. Especially when considering some over-the-counter drugs sold at pharmacies, or cigarettes and alcohol. There have been no deaths due to overdosing on marijuana, but there are plenty of instances of people dying as a result of overdosing on Advil, getting lung cancer as a habitual smoker, dying from alcohol poisoning, or driving drunk.

I hope that clears things up!

Quote from Mango

That particular point was simply my opinion as an add-on to formerly establishing that the plant is near harmless. Also, there are fundamental differences between natural herbs and aggressive, venomous reptiles.

That was a bad analogy but you're ignoring the point. When you are explaining why something is safe, "it's natural" is not a good reason. Jimson weed is a natural plant, and if you eat it you'll be delirious for days. You have extremely vivid hallucinations and completely lose the ability to tell what's real and what isn't. It's killed at least a few people and most end up in the hospital.


But, it's a plant and it's natural, I just wanted to mention that to establish the plant's harmlessness.


"Natural" doesn't offer any intrinsic implications of safety. Yes, weed is relatively harmless, but that isn't because it's a plant. It's because the compounds within the plant aren't particularly harmful to the human body, and neither are the by-products of smoking it. That has nothing to do with how "natural" it is, LSD is less harmful than marijuana and it's completely synthetic.

Quote from Mango

I still would argue that cannabis as a whole can't be patented.

Again, marijuana is not illegal because it can't be patented. That's not part of the legalization/criminalization argument. Whether it's true or not doesn't make much of a difference either way, there's still a fortune to be made through regulation and taxation.

It's a simple plant to grow and I think there's enough knowledge on cross/selective breeding to make an application of it unpatentable. If you grow your own strain, you don't need a patent, you already have the plant. If all you're selling are the buds, and you make sure seeds aren't in them (which is easy enough under controlled conditions) then how is a company going to copy you? There's no benefit in trying to copy a strain compared to growing one that's already available, or creating your own.

Quote from Exilement

That was a bad analogy but you're ignoring the point. When you are explaining why something is safe, "it's natural" is not a good reason. Jimson weed is a natural plant, and if you eat it you'll be delirious for days. You have extremely vivid hallucinations and completely lose the ability to tell what's real and what isn't. It's killed at least a few people and most end up in the hospital.


But, it's a plant and it's natural, I just wanted to mention that to establish the plant's harmlessness.


"Natural" doesn't offer any intrinsic implications of safety. Yes, weed is relatively harmless, but that isn't because it's a plant. It's because the compounds within the plant aren't particularly harmful to the human body, and neither are the by-products of smoking it. That has nothing to do with how "natural" it is, LSD is less harmful than marijuana and it's completely synthetic.

This again? I wasn't building my case on the basis that cannabis is okay because it's natural. I tried to explain that in my previous post.

You're preaching to the choir.

Quote from Exilement

Again, marijuana is not illegal because it can't be patented. That's not part of the legalization/criminalization argument. Whether it's true or not doesn't make much of a difference either way, there's still a fortune to be made through regulation and taxation.

Arguments Against Marijuana Legalization and/or Decriminalization From a Prevention Standpoint

• Marijuana Is Addictive
  
• Marijuana Addiction is a Pediatric Onset Disease
  
• Marijuana Use in Adolescence Effects Brain Development
  
• Marijuana Use Linked to Poor Academic Performance
  
• Legalization and Decriminalization Lead to Lower Perceptions of Harm
  

Source

Can you read that list and honestly say that's entirely why it's illegal? Would you consider even the remote possibility that large pharmaceutical corporations have been behind preventing legalization for the past 80-or-so years.

I get that this isn't the topic of the debate. It's just my two cents. I'll understand if you don't address that.

i think some history is in order if we're going to continue discussing marijuana, so here's a nice informative article (with references)

why is marijuana illegal?

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You’ll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

You’ll also see that the history of marijuana’s criminalization is filled with:

- Racism
- Fear
- Protection of Corporate Profits
- Yellow Journalism
- Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
- Personal Career Advancement and Greed

Drug legalization has nothing to do with harmful effects of drugs. In America, each individual should be allowed to say what he/she ingests or does with their own body (as far as it doesn't infringe on other people's individual liberties). Stop the (failed) war on drugs and reallocate funds to objectively educating people on the effects of drugs.

I for one don't care about most drugs being legalized (besides the fact that cocaine, heroin, and meth legalization would destroy the Mexican Drug Cartel economy) but there is a completely unreasonable scheduling of psychedelic substances (psilocybin mushrooms, LSD (acid), iboga, DMT (also ayahuasca), 2cE, MDMA) that is unfounded. Almost all psychedelic substances are physically harmless, non-addictive, and have significant therapeutic and spiritual benefits.

also weed but that's definitely gonna get legalized eventually everywhere

Quote from Highly_Scented

are physically harmless, non-addictive, and have significant therapeutic and spiritual benefits.

What do you mean by that

Quote from Highly_Scented

there is a completely unreasonable scheduling of psychedelic substances (psilocybin mushrooms, LSD (acid), iboga, DMT (also ayahuasca), 2cE, MDMA) that is unfounded. Almost all psychedelic substances are physically harmless, non-addictive, and have significant therapeutic and spiritual benefits.

i agree with this entirely, but i'd also like to add that psychedelics can be dangerous for your mental health if taken lightly. however, i believe it should be up to an informed individual to decide whether or not he/she is stable enough to handle the effects, because, as you've mentioned, the benefits can be significant too.

Quote from Fusion

>spiritual benefits
What do you mean by that

here's a quote from aldous huxley, in regard to the idea of occasionally taking mescalin instead of going to church:
"To be shaken out of the ruts of ordinary perception, to be shown for a few timeless hours the outer and the inner world, not as they appear to an animal obsessed with survival or to a human being obsessed with words and notions, but as they are apprehended, directly and unconditionally, by Mind at Large- this is an experience of inestimable value... The man who comes back through the Door in the Wall will never be quite the same as the man who went out. He will be wiser but less cocksure, happier but less self-satisfied, humbler in acknowledging his ignorance yet better equipped to understand the relationship of words to things, of systematic reasoning to the unfathomable Mystery which it tries, forever vainly, to comprehend."

if you're interested at all in what huxley has to say on the matter i recommend his books "the doors of perception" and "heaven and hell"

or ya could just pop a tab under your tongue

i think it is an extreme point to think all drugs should just be flat out legalized. i think it's perfectly okay for government and rules to say what you ingest in your body, as long as they have reasonable...reasons. there are highly addictive drugs which are obviously detrimental to your house. as humans, we enjoy the desirable affects from these drugs, and it's easy for us to get addicted like suckers. laws would help prevent people from trying such.

but what happens when these addicts get caught, arrested, or put on probation and are forced to stop? well they'll possibly experience terrible withdrawal symptoms and can possibly die. i think there should be a different approach to dealing with them. for one, i think having a (probably government funded) type of hospital designed to help people kick their habits. they would be able to legally administer specific amounts of clean drugs (e.g. heroin) to people who have gotten in trouble or are wanting to desperately give it up. it would be a type of rehabilitation center. seems counter productive to be feeding them drugs, but it's something they need to be weened off of. not to mention it gives them a much safer environment with drugs that aren't polluted with filler.

i know that somewhere there is a country with this type of system (sorry i can't remember what, it's been a looong time since i've first heard of it) but it was a successful idea in that country and helped a lot of people.


anyway but ya

you do know there are clinics that help people with opium dependencies with like.. uhhh.. well, i dunno what it is, but its basically opium (ingested orally), and they give less and less each time. i dont think we need to be giving anyone actual heroin, the government did enough by shippin bricks over here.
*in america, i dunno where you're from